I shared that view until Friday. But I was less than impressed with what followed. The biggest disappointment is that Ganson too, it seems, is very quick to send Wigan players to the sin-bin, but very slow to mete out the same punishment to those we are playing. Something I'd never have said about him before.

This both annoyed and concerned me on Friday.

ganson no balls we dont need that sort of thuggery in rugby leauge red hall red faced

The biggest problem that we face going into the play-offs is that referees seem to be very lenient with Wigan's opposition. Whether this is merely a bad run of luck or something to do with the ridiculous bleating about Wigan's "tactics" coupled with the usual anti-Wigan bias in the RL establishment remains to be seen. At the moment though, it is worrying. Fortunately we were significantly better than Leeds in all areas on Friday and managed to win despite being much more harshly policed than Leeds on infringements. As we move into the playoffs and have to beat the likes of Stains and Wire then if this continues things are going to be difficult. William Hill have us at 6/5 to win the GF. I think those odds flatter us, particularly with the way we and our opponents seem to be being refereed at the moment.

I'm glad you say this. It shows I'm not the only paranoid one around here.

But, joking aside, while we fans only really tend to see it one way, there have been some stand-out examples of - shall we say - 'odd' refereeing, at our expense, this season. Last Friday was one. The Leeds game in the cup was another. And then there was the away Huddersfield fixture, in which the opposition coach had appeared to actually threaten violence against our players beforehand.

Note, I'm not complaining about Wigan incurring a load of penalties. That happens when you apply a strong, smothering defence. I'm talking about Wigan players being subjected to incidents of thuggery (which occurred in all these games), the culprits going unpunished, and then Wigan players being sinbinned for technicalities. There may have been other matches which I've now forgotten, but these three come quickest to mind.

I'm not sure what, if anything, we can actually do about this. Wigan's official policy seems to be to not complain - at least not in public. And this may be sensible. When you've got a controller of referees, who is apparently answerable to nobody, and who, during his own playing days, regularly showed poor judgement and was accused of having an anti-Wigan bias, I don't imagine it would take much to goad him into giving us an even harder time.

But you're right - it's definitely starting to look as if someone is out to stop us, and I don't how much longer the club will let that go on for without questioning it.

Well if that viewpoint constitutes being paranoid then i have to admit to being a fully paid up member of the club

I concur with the conspiracy theory and remain convinced that Bentham is being saved up for the crunch match. Be that a knock out semi final or the final itself. Cummings' and his little bitch still have unfinished business with us.

I am absolutely convinced we wil not win the playoffs due to a shocking refereeing decision.

I kept trying to balance it out by thinking well surely summat has got to go our way, and hoepfully its the big night when it happens.

Was it in the playoffs last year, Joel against Saints, on halfway, the ref shouted play on then we he did he pulled him back and give a penalty to Saints?? I just couldn't believe it.

Wilkin holding Lockers down for an eternity when he made the break after winning the scrum against the head at KR on GF. Should defo have been sin binned. The ref couldn't get the yellow out quick enough when Roberts patted the ball out of a Saints hand.

The shocking decision at Leeds in the cup when Lee Smith kncoked on, Sam tried to ground the ball, was held up, and the ref decided it was the last tackle and gave the ball back to Leeds!

Farrell at Headingley in the cup, sinbinned for brushing McGuires shoulder. Peacocks shocking head high on Sam - did he even give a penalty?

Saints at home, Roby never grounded the ball from any angle yet try given. 50/50 try from Meli which was fair enough but almost exactly same situation happened with Richards at home to Wire and they deemed he didn't have downward pressure. Bar that 50/50, Wire did beat us fair and square.

Ablett staying on pitch after almost decapitating Sam, Coley sin binned ridiculously. I can't tell you how surprised I was that they didn't allow Hall's try even though it touched Sam. I was convinced that they could have got away with another 'blunder'

Must note that away at Wire we got a 50/50 decision with Roberts try when it could be argued Gleeson was impeding King.

Paranoia over(phewwwww)

The inconsistency from the referees during our games this year has been there for anyone to see - even non-Wigan supporters (not the ones who come on here obviously). Silverwood's display at Huddersfield was a particular low point for me: 2 sin binnings and the Giants gifted attacking field position for a series of technical offenses.

So what's going on? Personally I don't buy the 'it's because we're Wigan' argument. I think it's more likely that Cummings and co think we're getting away with something, probably with respect to our defensive tactics that several coaches and even one chairman have moaned about in the press. We're not breaking any rules so they try to 'even' things up by going easy on the opposition and hitting us with major penalties, like the sin bin, at any opportunity.

I have a strong feeling that Cummings will adjust the rules in the close season to legislate against our style of defensive play.

In the meantime, in a close game we're always going to have to handle the referee as well as our opposition. Whilst we're six points clear in the league, we can't be under any illusions about the ability of Leeds, Warrington or Saints to beat us - and with the exception of Friday's win, they've been fairly close games - so I can't help being as paranoid as the other posters on here.

One problem is that the refs (or the head of referees) doesn't seem to care enough about being seen to be neutral. Bentham's one sided display in the semi was broadcast live on the BBC. His boss predictably backed him 100% - which shouldn't surprise anyone who saw Cummings as a referee. This guy wasn't just unreliable, he even had an agenda against certain players (Graham Bradley from Bradford springs to mind) and never tried to hide it when reffing those games.

It does make you despair as a paying fan. The fierce rivalry between clubs is born from passionate loyalty, it's part of what makes our sport great. But the officials should be capable of rising above their personal feelings as fans - otherwise they're hardly serving their function are they?

No, I didn't and neither did you.

I see that Shaun Wane, speaking in the dressing room after the game, believes that Ablett's "thuggery", as you lot call it, was "clumsy" and "probably not malicious".

I'd guess that he realises that "thuggery" has never been part of Ablett's game.

For me, there was only 1 simple question to come out of that "tackle" on Friday:

How much damage do you have to inflict in order to be sent off?

Honest answers please? If that wasn't a straight red, then how much damage (or potential damage) needs to be inflicted before it becomes one?

And as for using Wane's words as a defence for that assault, it smacks of desperation by the Rhino's management.

On that subject, El Barbudo, unlike your coach who whines about wrestling and condones physical assault, our coaching staff have a touch of class.

Wane could easily have screamed for a 6-week ban (ala Nathan Brown), or started bitching about the blatant attack to the head.
Instead, he said what was necessary to sweep it under the carpet, as it's already out there for the world to review and pass judgement, and he got back to the important stuff, like the fact that we won anyway.

If Ablett receives less than the full 3 matches, I'll be worried about the state of our game. There seems to be zero protection for players from premeditated acts of violence on the field.